IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Revision Application No.101
of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
1.
For hearing of main case
2. For
hearing of M.A. No.6038/2025
-------------------------------------
16.05.2025
Mr.
Zahoor Ahmed Chadhar, advocate for applicant
Mr.
Tahir Hussain Mangi, A.P.G.
------------------------------------
Applicant
Muhammad Kazim Khan has impugned order dated 08.04.2025, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Karachi East in ID Complaint No.108/2024 on the
application filed by the applicant under Section 265-K, Cr.PC whereby learned
trial Court had dismissed the said application on the ground that sufficient
material is available on record which connects the applicant with the
commission of offence and matter requires further inquiry.
2. Leaned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is neither owner nor tenant of the
subject premises, as such, he has nothing to do with the alleged offence but
the complainant has wrongly and mala fidely implicated him in the alleged
offence, therefore, he has filed application under Section 265-K, Cr.PC for his
premature acquittal and learned trial Court without going into the material
placed by applicant has dismissed his premature acquittal application.
3. Learned
A.P.G. opposed for grant of instant criminal revision application, supports the
impugned order and submits that matter required evidence.
4. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as A.P.G. and perused the material
available on record.
5. The
respondent, who is complainant in I.D. Complaint No.108/2024, has filed his
complaint and learned trial Court called report from the concerned SHO as well
as from the concerned department and after inquiry learned trial Court has
taken cognizance of alleged offence against the applicant and others vide order
dated 21.10.2024. It is settled principle of law that any accused can seek
premature acquittal under Section 265-K, Cr.PC only on the ground, when the charge
is groundless and there is no probability of conviction. Learned trial Court
has already taken cognizance against the applicant after assessment of material
available on record. Trial Court has given its findings in the impugned order,
relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:
“I have considered the respective
submissions in consonance with the above mentioned reported case laws so relied
by the learned counsel for accused and in the light of available record and
proceedings. It is an admitted fact that this Court in order to ascertain the
actual position got the case investigated through police as well as through
concerned Deputy Commissioner Karachi East, both reports supported the case of
complainant in all respect. More-so, the present accused had also got recorded
his statement before police wherein he had admitted to have been in possession
of the subject property. Now he took instance that he got recorded his statement
before police at the instance of original owner of the subject property namely
Faizan Ahmed Khan Suri. Be that as it may, as per police report all the
documents so produced by the accused persons on verification found bogus. It is
relevant to point out here that accused persons have entered their appearance.
Anyhow, after having been heard and perused the entire record, including
reports, this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 had taken Cognizance against
accused persons namely Choudhry Maqsood, Asif Azhar Hussain, Syed Fawad Hussain
Naqvi, Muhammad Anees, Syed Farhat Abbas Zaidi, Syed Basit Hussain Zaidi, Syed
Muhammad Kazim Khan, Syed Rehmat Ali Shah, Abdul Rafay, Mrs. Sikandar Bano
Naqvi and Farzana Zaidi u/s 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and BWs
were ordered.”
In view of above, no case for premature acquittal of
the applicant has been made out. I do not see any irregularity or infirmity in
the impugned order. The matter requires evidence, therefore, instance criminal
revision application is dismissed
along with pending application(s).
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS